Tenth Circuit Applies Federal Standard of Care in Claim Alleging Negligent Handling of an In-Flight Emergency

Bradshaw v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 2024 WL 5131447 (10th Cir. Dec. 17, 2024)

The Tenth Circuit addressed whether and to what extent the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 and corresponding aviation safety regulations preempted an Oklahoma common law negligence claim alleging the negligent handling of an in-flight emergency.  The Tenth Circuit majority agreed with the Third Circuit’s holding in Abdullah v. Am. Airlines, Inc. that the federal law standard of care preempted the Oklahoma state law standard of care but that the passengers retained their ability to pursue a remedy under Oklahoma common law.

The plaintiffs sued Mesa Airlines and American Airlines, claiming injuries sustained due to Mesa and American’s response to a loss of cabin pressure incident on a Mesa Airlines flight.  Upon the loss of cabin pressure, the Mesa Airlines flight crew executed a rapid descent consistent with Mesa’s FAA- and manufacturer-approved emergency procedures and Mesa’s handbook.  Once the aircraft reached 10,000 feet, the captain informed the passengers of the cabin pressure issue and the need to divert the flight.  The plaintiffs alleged that the Mesa captain was negligent by failing to advise passengers of an immediate considerable threat to passengers and by descending to the lowest possible altitude, not the safest highest altitude.  The plaintiffs further alleged that American was negligent for failing to provide medical personnel at the airport.

The district court granted Mesa’s and American’s motions for summary judgment.  In granting the airlines’ motions, the court found that federal law impliedly preempted state law in the field of aviation safety, applied the “careless or reckless” federal standard of care for aircraft operation under 14 CFR 91.13, and found not “even an iota of evidence” that the airlines violated any federal regulation.

While the Tenth Circuit had already found that federal interests dominated and therefore preempted the field of aviation safety, the issue on appeal was how to apply a savings clause in the Federal Aviation Act, which provides that “[a] remedy under this part is in addition to any other remedies provided by law.”

Following the Third Circuit decision in Abdullah, as well as subsequent Second, Sixth, and Ninth Circuit decisions, the Tenth Circuit majority held that the savings clause allowed the plaintiffs to seek a remedy under state common law but that the federal standard of care applied to the negligence claim, not Oklahoma’s standard of care for common carriers.  Therefore, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s application of the federal standard of care in granting the airlines’ summary judgment motions based on no evidence that the airlines violated federal regulations.